Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Rep. Bettie Scott (D) on January 22, 2009, to prohibit a local government from granting Plant Rehabilitation and Industrial Development District property tax breaks unless the recipient promises not to knowingly hire illegal aliens, and to make a good faith effort to only hire Michigan residents and use Michigan suppliers and vendors on the project unless that means the project cannot be completed. Violators could have their tax breaks revoked and be required to repay all or part of those already used. Local governments would have to report annually to the Michigan Strategic Fund board on the number of residents employed by beneficiaries of these tax breaks, and the specific reasons for each exemption granted from the proposed state-resident-job requirements.
  • Referred to the House Labor Committee on January 22, 2009.
    • Reported in the House on February 10, 2009, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on March 12, 2009, to transfer the duty to file compliance and job-creation reports with state targeted tax break-granting officials from the local government authorizing these particular tax breaks to to the recipient. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 12, 2009.
• Passed 79 to 28 in the House on March 12, 2009, to prohibit a local government from granting Plant Rehabilitation and Industrial Development District property tax breaks unless the recipient promises not to knowingly hire illegal aliens, and to make a good faith effort to only hire Michigan residents and use Michigan suppliers and vendors on the project unless that means the project cannot be completed. Violators could have their tax breaks revoked and be required to repay all or part of those already used. Tax break recipients would have to report annually to the Michigan Strategic Fund board on the number of residents employed by the beneficiaries of these bonds and tax breaks, and their "good faith efforts" to comply with the employee residency and related mandates.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on March 18, 2009.
  • Referred to the Senate Commerce & Tourism Committee on March 18, 2009.
  • Motion by Sen. Samuel B. Thomas, III (D) on April 1, 2009, to discharge the Committee on Commerce and Tourism from further consideration of House Bills 4083 to 4093, and move them directly to the Senate floor for immediate consideration and debate. The bills would impose citizenship and resident preferences on companies that benefit from subsidies or tax breaks, or that have contracts with the state. A single motion covered all 11 bill, and the roll call vote on that is here. The motion failed by voice vote in the Senate on April 1, 2009.
  • Reported in the Senate on May 7, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the Senate on May 7, 2009. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on May 7, 2009.
  • Substitute offered by Sen. John Gleason (D) on May 7, 2009. The substitute failed 16 to 21 in the Senate on May 7, 2009.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on May 7, 2009.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on May 7, 2009.
  • Substitute offered by Rep. Bettie Scott (D) on June 18, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that tie-bar it to House Bills 4085 and 4086, meaning this bill cannot become law unless those ones do also. These other bills in the "residents only" package are favored by the House Democratic majority because they exempt union members from the restrictive provisions. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 18, 2009.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Goeff Hansen (R) on June 18, 2009, to not tie-bar the bill to House Bills 4085 and 4086. These other bills in the "residents only" package are favored by the House Democratic majority because they exempt union members from the restrictive provisions. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 18, 2009.
• Passed 76 to 32 in the House on June 18, 2009, to adopt a version of the bill that "tie-bars" it to House Bills 4085 and 4086. These other bills in the "residents only" package are favored by the House Democratic majority because they exempt union members from the restrictive provisions proposed by the bill.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on June 25, 2009.
• Failed 16 to 20 in the Senate on June 25, 2009, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on August 19, 2009.